Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I rise to speak to amendment 128, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley—let us hope this one goes slightly better. We understand the reason for clause 58 and for outlining the provisions for amending an environmental delivery plan. The clause clearly lays out the process the Secretary of State must go through to amend an EDP, which they may do either on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England. The reason why my hon. Friend tabled amendment 128 is that, in some cases, the Secretary of State may choose to revoke an EDP. We will come to compulsory purchase orders later, but we would like to tighten up the wording of the Bill, so that when an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State must seek to return any land obtained under a CPO for the purposes of that EDP to the original owner. Will the Minister outline his thoughts on those proposals, which relate to cases where land has been CPO-ed and what happens to it afterwards? I hope he will see amendment 128 as a minor adjustment to the Bill and that he will give me some satisfactory answers, as he has this morning. We support the clause in general, but we just seek to tighten the language.

   Hansard source
2. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I am just trying to be helpful. Clause 58(4) clearly sets out the process where a Secretary of State directs Natural England to consult, and the detailed consultation procedure is set out in clause 54. We have had a big debate on consultation procedures, which are not necessarily what we would like in other clauses of the Bill, but consultation is clearly set out in clause 58(4).

   Hansard source
3. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

   No, Dr Huq, but on the assurances that the Minister gave in relation to amendment 128, which he said he expected we would take in the spirit in which he intended them, let me say that we will seek further clarification from him on CPO. Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 60 Challenging an EDP Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

   Hansard source
4. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I thank the Minister for that explanation of the clause. We have tabled no amendments, but we do have some questions for him. We welcome the Government’s recognition that there should be the right to challenge an EDP—that is perfectly sensible and we appreciate it—and we welcome the fact that an EDP can be challenged by judicial review. We have all seen examples in our constituencies of large-scale projects in the planning system; in my area, although I disagreed with the people who were against an extension of Southampton airport’s runway, they had the right to go to judicial review. We also see—I declare an interest given what I said on Tuesday about Hamble quarry —communities wanting to assess whether they can take cases to judicial review. We absolutely welcome that provision in clause 60. However, we have a concern about the six-week window. The Minister will know—and we have all seen these cases, for good and bad—that people who may want to bring a judicial review, or at least investigate one, cannot always afford it. They are not always well-organised or large-scale businesses with the resources to afford that very expensive and complicated process. We are concerned that such a short window may hinder meaningful access to justice, particularly for local communities, smaller organisations, or individuals or charities, which may lack the resources or legal expertise to respond quickly enough. I know that this is in legislation, but is the Minister confident that the six-week window is sufficient, given the potential complexity of EDPs, and will he look at reviewing it or consulting interested parties on it? We have been very clear that we expect robust public engagement and clear communication obligations. Especially on something as substantial as an EDP, and bearing in mind the charities or small activist groups that may be affected by it and that may, whether we back the principle of EDPs or not, have genuine disagreements, I invite the Minister to outline his thoughts on the six-week period.

   Hansard source
5. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse; welcome back to the Committee. Good afternoon to all colleagues. We are generally supportive of clause 61; I recognise the intent behind the amendment, but I would like to speak to clause 61 stand part. Although the clause introduces a streamlined mechanism for fulfilling environmental requirements, it raises several questions that I shall put to the Minister on some of the detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner may have some specific questions too. First, the discretion given to Natural England to accept or reject a developer’s request lacks clarity. There are no outlined criteria or standards for decision making, which could lead to an inconsistent or opaque outcome. I ask the Minister: what criteria will Natural England use to accept or reject a developer’s request to pay the levy? Does he think there needs to be more specificity in the accompanying regulations, if not in the Bill? Secondly, although the clause references charging schedules and payment phasing, it does not address how those charges are calculated or whether they reflect the environmental impact of the development. Could the Minister assure the Committee—not necessarily today or in the legislation—how he will provide more specific details on the charging regime? Without that, there would be a risk of turning the levy into a transactional tool rather than a meaningful mechanism for ecological restoration. Additionally, there is no mention of how Natural England will ensure that payments are effectively translated into real conservation outcomes. Without clearer safeguards, the process could be perceived more as a pay-to-proceed option than as a robust tool for environmental accountability. If the Minister could provide some specifics on those two main points, we would be content to support clause 61.

   Hansard source
6. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

   I am grateful the Minister for his comments on amendment 129. All I would say to the Minister in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley is once bitten, twice shy. I have a couple of questions for the Minister on clause 63. The clause delegates significant discretion to the Secretary of State, without setting out guiding principles or safeguards. Although the Minister said that regulations will be forthcoming—I am grateful to him for confirming that they will be subject to the affirmative procedure—there remain some important unresolved issues in the Bill. That includes how liability will be shared in complex developments involving multiple parties, or how the timing of liability will interact with project phasing and financial planning. Without that clarity, there is a real risk of legal uncertainty for developers and of inconsistency in enforcement. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind when the Bill receives Royal Assent and he goes away to look at regulations for affirmative scrutiny in this House. A more robust approach would involve the Bill at least outlining the key principles that will to guide the development of the regulations, ensuring that they are applied fairly, consistently and with due regard to the practical realities of development delivery.

   Hansard source
7. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

   My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I entirely agree with him, which is why, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, we make a dream team that is in fast competition with the Minister. He should watch this space—it is four years and counting. [Interruption.] I am joking with the Minister. What I would say to my hon. Friend is that that is the key reason why we have concerns about clause 63. We understand the Minister’s intentions, and we will not press the amendment to further complicate the clause. However, we are concerned that the lack of clarity in the Bill could, in a very complex EDP involving multiple parties, damage the clause’s intent to enhance environmental protection. The number of planning permissions going through could increase, but the end result would actually be that the delivery was not there. That is a key area where the Minister needs to look at strengthening the wording in the Bill. That aside, we will not push our amendment to a vote.

   Hansard source
8. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

   I have a brief question. I understand that the Minister wants to bring forward regulations backed by the affirmative procedure, and that is welcome. I am slightly concerned by the wording in subsection (3): “In any proceedings for judicial review of a decision on an appeal, the defendant is to be such person as is specified in the regulations (and the regulations may also specify a person who is not to be the defendant for these purposes).” I seek reassurance from the Minister that once the Bill receives Royal Assent, he will err on the side of being liberal about who can bring an issue to judicial review, and that he will not seek to restrict a category of person from taking such actions. I would be grateful if he could give that assurance.

   Hansard source
9. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

   We will not press amendments 130 to 132, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, to a vote. On clause 66 more generally, we accept that it sets out how funding collected by Natural England through the nature restoration levy must be used. In broad terms, it is to be spent on relevant conservation measures, as well as on the administrative costs that arise. However, there is an absence of clarity that could lead to potential concerns about the transparency and accountability of fund distribution. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk that administrative costs could disproportionately consume the funds meant for conservation, thereby undermining the levy’s effectiveness in achieving its environmental objectives. Furthermore, we have a concern that the clause provides no safeguards to ensure that the funds are spent efficiently or effectively, and nor does it establish any oversight mechanisms to monitor the use of the funds. We would argue that a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be managed, with clear priority given to conservation over administration, would help build trust in the system and ensure that the nature restoration levy delivers the intended environmental benefits. Additionally, and lastly, there should be a requirement for periodic reporting on how the funds are used, which would provide necessary transparency and reassurance to stakeholders.

   Hansard source
10. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman knows that I have asked the Minister to be more specific about the proposed regulations, and I am looking forward to scrutinising them. However, I still think amendment 6 is very broad, including the language about how the “levy must be paid before development begins.” To help my colleagues and me, it would be useful if the hon. Gentleman elaborated on whether that will be the day before development begins. Can he set out what “before” actually means? It is a very broad term.

    Hansard source
11. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I am grateful for the useful clarification. I rise to speak to clauses 67 and 68. As I have outlined to the Minister, we are concerned that a number of these clauses in the 60s—if I can refer to them as a group—are very broad in scope. The Minister will say to me that we will come on to scrutinise that, and he has confirmed that the affirmative process will apply. I fully accept that, but it concerns me that the broad brushstrokes in the Bill do not have meat to their bones. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, has made a genuine point about democratic accountability and oversight. In a previous amendment, it was proposed that an independent body should be overseeing some of the actions in Natural England. I gently say to the Liberal Democrats that it is clear from this group of clauses that Natural England is being supervised, instructed and scrutinised by the democratically elected Secretary of State. So two clear bodies, if I can call the Secretary of State or their office a body, are providing scrutiny. It would be a very dangerous precedent to legislate to essentially protect the public from a democratically elected Secretary of State, just because somebody is fearful about where they come from, what party they represent or their policies.

    Hansard source
12. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We heard evidence from the chief executive of Natural England, and in case she is listening, I say again very clearly that I make no imputation about the way she or the organisation are doing their job, but the language that she used was very loose. Without that financial certainty, there is a question about whether the organisation will be able to cope with all the responsibilities that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined. As my hon. Friend just mentioned, the Minister has also admitted—if he wants to intervene, that is fine—that no additional funding means that Natural England will be relying on the spending review even more than we thought at the beginning of the evidence session.

    Hansard source
13. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    The Minister is shaking his head, so I will give way.

    Hansard source
14. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I am a very aspirational, can-do, go-getter politician—[Interruption.] Yes, it is everyone else who needs to say that. I am willing to sit down with the Minister and guide him in any way I can—perhaps over a double espresso—to make sure that the gist of what the Bill seeks to achieve is matched in the specificity about what is required in regulations. I do not think I am being ungenerous to the Minister; I have accepted that he has been very good in saying that we will consider them under the affirmative procedure. But as we discuss the key driving force behind the Bill, we seek reassurance on some of the unclear elements of Natural England’s responsibilities. The Minister, who is driving this legislation forward, could indicate to the Committee verbally or in writing afterwards where he will give more specifics on enforcement action, on costs, on raising powers and on other things. I am not being mean to him; I am just saying that if he spent years writing this while he was shadow Minister, he should know what he wants Natural England to do now that he is Minister. I have full confidence that he can do that, and I cannot be any more complimentary to him than I have been on this Committee.

    Hansard source
15. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    If the Minister has lived and breathed this for the many years for which he has wanted to write this legislation, and he has then got to the dizzying heights of a red box and a ministerial desk, he should know what he wants to do—

    Hansard source
16. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    At the insistence of the general noise coming mostly from Government Members, I will plough on. The serious point behind what I was saying is that the Conservatives, alongside the Liberal Democrats, do have some concerns about the regulations and the responsibilities of Natural England. On clause 68, we welcome the ability to make payments in instalments or in forms other than money. That provides some adaptable and accessible elements for developers. However, we worry about the overburdening of other public bodies that might be asked to pay into this fund. We would argue that some of the process is not clearly defined. On enforcement, the clause lacks specifics regarding the consequences for late or failed payments. Additionally, it does not address how flexibility will be built into the enforcement process for developers. We think that developers deserve clarity about that. Although we had a brief moment of levity earlier, there is a serious point about the responsibilities. We hope the Minister will be able to respond to our concerns.

    Hansard source
17. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 72, page 101, line 7, at end insert— “(2A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to land which is, or forms part of, a legally occupied dwelling or a private garden.”

    Hansard source
18. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    You will be pleased to hear, Mrs Hobhouse, that I will be very brief. I just want to ask some questions and speak to amendment 150 and the clause. I will also speak to new clause 107. I will listen to the Minister’s answers before deciding whether to divide the Committee on the amendment. We know that clause 72 gives Natural England the power compulsorily to acquire land, including “new rights over land”, subject to authorisation by the Secretary of State. Although this provision ensures that Natural England can secure the necessary land for environmental conservation and restoration projects, the use of compulsory land acquisition raises several concerns. The Minister should not be surprised to hear that, because we have raised them before. First, compulsory acquisition can have significant social and economic impacts on landowners, potentially displacing communities or affecting livelihoods. A clear and transparent process must be in place to ensure that landowners are fairly compensated and that their interests are adequately considered, yet the clause does not specify the conditions in which the compulsory powers will be exercised, which could lead to concerns about the fairness or necessity of such actions. The requirement for authorisation by the Secretary of State introduces an additional layer of oversight that might provide a safeguard against the misuse of these powers, but the clause would benefit from more detail of the criteria and process for granting authorisation, to ensure that the Secretary of State's decisions are transparent, accountable and based on clear, consistent guidelines. Without such clarity, there is a risk of arbitrary or inconsistent use of compulsory acquisition powers. That is notwithstanding the defence that I gave, believing that the Secretary of State should have those powers in earlier clauses. The clause also does not address potential challenges from landowners or local communities affected by the acquisition, such as disputes over compensation or the environmental justification for land use. It would be beneficial to outline a clear appeals or mediation process to resolve such issues, which I know we come on to later in the Bill. Overall, while the power to acquire land may be necessary for some conservation efforts, careful safeguards are required to avoid potential negative consequences and to ensure that the power is exercised appropriately and fairly. Amendment 150 stands in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle. I would not say this is a probing amendment, but will the Minister clarify the parameters on the exercise of a compulsory purchase order when it comes to “a legally occupied dwelling or private garden.”? We do not expect him to completely eradicate the use of such an order, but we would appreciate his guidance on where the regulations point in respect of when Natural England should and could be able to take private dwellings in a CPO process. Turning to new clause 107, I note, in the interests of transparency, that I do not think we will move the clause, but we want to press the Minister as we remain concerned about compulsory purchase. We believe that compulsorily purchased land should be returned to the person from whom it was compulsorily purchased if certain conditions are met. Those are that “the owner of the land has refused to agree to a contract offered by Natural England”— that gives power to the individual— “any works specified under the contract have been undertaken on behalf of Natural England and relate to an environmental development plan…a compulsory purchase order has been made by Natural England in…relation to the land; and…the cost of work undertaken on the land by Natural England exceeds the value of the contract offered by Natural England to the owner.” I hope the Minister sees why we have tabled the amendments. I am not being obtuse, Mrs Hobhouse, in not saying yet whether we will push them to a vote. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about them, but as soon as we have, we will give you a steer.

    Hansard source
19. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

    We are satisfied with and appreciate the Minister’s response, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 5 Compulsory acquisition of land under Part 3: supplementary provisions Amendments made: 112, in schedule 5, page 148, line 36, at end insert— “5A (1) Paragraph 3(2) does not apply to— (a) any right vested in statutory undertakers for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking, (b) any apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers for that purpose, (c) any right conferred by, or in accordance with, the electronic communications code on the operator of an electronic communications code network, or (d) any electronic communications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of any such network. (2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘statutory undertakers’ means persons who are, or are deemed to be, statutory undertakers for the purposes of any provision of Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and ‘undertaking’ is to be read in accordance with section 262 of that Act (meaning of ‘statutory undertakers’).” This amendment secures that the things mentioned in the inserted paragraph 5A are not affected by paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5, which would otherwise provide for their extinguishment or acquisition when land is compulsorily acquired under clause 72. Amendment 113, in schedule 5, page 152, line 10, leave out “or restrictive covenant”. This amendment and amendment 114 remove erroneous references to a restrictive covenant from paragraph 11 of Schedule 5. Paragraph 11 relates only to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72. Amendment 114, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, leave out “or enforcing that covenant”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 113. Amendment 115, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, after “sections” insert “11A (powers of entry: further notices of entry), 11B (counter-notice requiring possession to be taken on specified date),”. This amendment secures that the modification of section 11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 made by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 affects sections 11A and 11B of that Act, as well as sections 12 and 13. Amendment 116, in schedule 5, page 152, line 29, at end insert— “New rights: application of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 13A The Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (‘CP(VD)A 1981’) applies to the compulsory acquisition of new rights under section 72— (a) with the modifications specified in paragraph 13B; and (b) with such other modifications as may be necessary. 13B (1) The modifications of CP(VD)A 1981 referred to in paragraph 13A(a) are as follows. (2) References to CPA 1965 are, in appropriate contexts, to be read (according to the requirements of the particular context) as referring to, or as including references to— (a) the right acquired or to be acquired; or (b) the land over which the right is, or is to be, exercisable. (3) References to CPA 1965 are to be read as references to that Act as it applies to the compulsory acquisition of a right under section 72. (4) Section 8(1) (vesting, and right to enter and take possession) is to be read as securing that— (a) a general vesting declaration in respect of any right vests the right in the acquiring authority on the vesting date; and (b) as from the vesting date, the acquiring authority has power, exercisable in the same circumstances and subject to the same conditions, to enter land for the purpose of exercising that right as if the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) and (b) of section 8(1) had arisen. (5) Section 9(2) (right of entry under section 8(1) not exercisable in respect of land subject to certain tenancies unless notice has been served on occupiers of the land) is to be read as requiring a notice served by the appropriate authority under that provision to refer to the authority’s intention to enter land specified in the notice in order to exercise the right. (6) In section 10(1) (acquiring authority’s liability on vesting of the land), the reference to the acquiring authority’s taking possession of the land under section 11 of CPA 1965 is to be read as a reference to the authority’s exercising the power to enter the land under that provision as modified by paragraph 11 of this Schedule. (7) Schedule A1 (counter-notice requiring purchase of land not in general vesting declaration) is to be read as if— (a) in paragraph 1(1), for ‘part only of’ there were substituted ‘only the acquisition of a right over’; (b) paragraph 1(2) were omitted; (c) references to the land proposed to be acquired were (subject to paragraph (e) below) to the right proposed to be acquired; (d) references to the additional land were to the house, building or factory over which the right is proposed to be exercisable; (e) in paragraphs 14 and 15, references to the severance of land proposed to be acquired were to the acquisition of the right; and (f) in paragraph 15, after ‘in addition to’ there were inserted ‘or in substitution for’.” This amendment secures that the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72, subject (a) to the specific modifications in paragraph 13B (designed to secure that certain provisions of that Act work correctly in relation to that case and (b) any other modifications necessary to secure that result. Amendment 117, in schedule 5, page 152, line 32, leave out “with the necessary modifications, in” and insert “— (a) with the modification specified in paragraph 15, and (b) with such other modifications as are necessary, in”. Paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 secures that the enactments relating to compensation for the compulsory purchase of land apply to the acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72 with the modifications necessary to make them work correctly in relation to that case. The amendment makes clear that the modifications include the particular modification of the Land Compensation Act 1961 set out in the new paragraphs 15 inserted by Amendment 118. Amendment 118, in schedule 5, page 152, line 35, at end insert— “15 Section 5A (relevant valuation date) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be read as if for subsections (5A) and (5B) there were substituted— ‘(5A) If— (a) the acquiring authority enters on land for the purpose of exercising a right in pursuance of a notice of entry under section 11(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (as modified by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025), (b) the acquiring authority is subsequently required by a determination under paragraph 13 of Schedule 2A to the 1965 Act (as substituted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025) to acquire an interest in the land, and (c) the acquiring authority enters on and takes possession of that land, the authority is deemed for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) to have entered on that land when it entered on that land for the purpose of exercising that right. (5B) If— (a) a right over land is the subject of a general vesting declaration, (b) by virtue of paragraph 11(2) or 16(2) of Schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, the declaration has effect as if it included an interest in the land, and (c) the vesting date for the right is different from the vesting date for the interest in the land, the first of the vesting dates is deemed for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) to be the vesting date for the whole of the land.’”—(Matthew Pennycook.) This amendment sets out a modification of section 5A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 as it applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72. The amendments ensure that section 5A works correctly in relation to its application to the acquisition of such new rights. Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 73 and 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 75 Duty of co-operation Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
20. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Business of the House

    Questions and answers will have to be much shorter so we can get more colleagues in.

    Hansard source
21. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Business of the House

    Order. Unless questions and answers are very short, many colleagues will be disappointed.

    Hansard source
22. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
23. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

    I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

    Hansard source
24. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
25. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

    I call Richard Foord, a member of the Select Committee.

    Hansard source
26. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

    The final question goes to the ever-patient Chris Vince.

    Hansard source
27. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants

    We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Work and Pensions Committee. Debbie Abrahams will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches—hopefully, people understand the difference between those two things. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Chair of the Committee, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

    Hansard source
28. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants

    Ms Abrahams, would you like a sip of water before you continue?

    Hansard source
29. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants

    Not at all.

    Hansard source
30. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants

    I know that the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) takes her work incredibly seriously, and we could see the emotion when she delivered her statement.

    Hansard source
31. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Solar Farms

    Order. Members can see that a number of people wish to contribute, so there will be a time limit of four minutes.

    Hansard source
32. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Youth Services

    I am keen to get everybody in, so I will have to reduce the speaking limit to two minutes.

    Hansard source
33. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Youth Services

    Order. I call Warinder Juss.

    Hansard source
34. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Youth Services

    I thank hon. Members for working with me—we got all the Back-Bench contributions in. We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
35. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Youth Services

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
36. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Youth Services

    Very touching. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the long-term funding of youth services.

    Hansard source
37. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Coroner Services: West Midlands

    On coroner services in the west midlands, I call Jim Shannon.

    Hansard source
38. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Coroner Services: West Midlands

    With my own father’s Islamic funeral taking place very recently in Birmingham, I too am very interested in the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source
39. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)

    Is the new clause not particularly important because of the unprecedented criticism in multiple reports from the DPRRC in the other place? That criticism calls into question the many issues that my hon. Friend raises, so there is an extra onus on the Government to accept new clause 2.

    Hansard source
40. 15 May 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)

    I totally understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I understand that the Lib Dems desire to get closer to and back into bed with Europe—

    Hansard source